I think that the last time I looked at how much had been spent on windmill subsidy it was the cost of three Sizewell Bs. I've some objections to Windmills mostly to do with ruining beautiful countryside and causing a hazard to navigation. However I really have a problem with the subsidies. Either the technology works and provides electricity at a viable price or it is a waste of bloody time. I object to paying 50p/kWH just so some mung bean muncher can feel in touch with Mother Earth.
Hear, hear.
I don't think it has. 2025 I think.
WE reckon however that only the Wylfa Magnnox - due to shut down ep 2014
- need actually close. The AGRs could, subject to safety inspections, run to 2030 or so.
In message , RJH writes
A bit like this
can somebody point out where he actually answers his own question ?
No 2030 according to article in the Torygraph today
On Wednesday 27 March 2013 21:21 Steve Firth wrote in uk.d-i-y:
I agree. Frightening...
Subsidies would have some merit if the technology was immature and showiing signs of rapidly improving given a chance.
I doubt windmills can be made *much* more efficient as a device and no amount of extra effort will make the wind blow exactly when needed.
Now, if they were subsidising research and test farms for storing large amounts of output from windmills, that would make slightly more sense.
We need tunnels. Through the Pennines, etc. Have underground ducted windmills... :-)
Tempting for land owners though. Field arrays of solar also appear rewarding.
I'm also with Steve: if it is not financially viable, don't do it.
>
Correct. windmills are already so close to the Betz limit that there is little hope of getting more out of them.
Nor are the costs decreasing in any meaningful way, they have been stuck at £1000 a KW for a decade now give or take. Pls £200 a kw to install them offshore.
well they would if there were a cats chance in hell that any of the ways of storing energy we know about could
- be scaled up to the massive storage we would need
- were safe enough to be deployed within 60 miles of human habitation
- cost slightly less than putting a man on the moon.
As it is, in the Real World - which is devoid of politicians and greens
- the cost of doing it all some other way, like having a small hill of coal, or a cubic meter of plutonium, are much safer and a lot cheaper and take up a lot less space.
Basically, they are about as much use as a wooden football.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.